Disorder and Social Control

.title[
# Disorder and Social Control
]
.subtitle[
## Experimental evidence on prosocial and antisocial decision making
]
.author[
### Charles C. Lanfear Ross L. Matsueda & Lindsey R. Beach
]

---

# Broken Windows

---

# Broken Windows

[Wilson & Kelling (1982)](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/) describe a system where community disorder (1) increases crime by 
signalling low social control to offenders and (2) decreases actual social control by reducing willingness to use public spaces.
--

![Broken Windows](data:image/png;base64,#img/broken_windows_pretty.svg)

]

* B, E: Disorder and crime constrain social relations and impede control

* C, D: Social control inhibits both disorder and crime
]

---

## Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008)

Keizer et al. used multiple disorder manipulations and recorded norm violation with field experiments in Groningen, the Netherlands to test the direct micro-mechanism of broken windows.

![Keizer](data:image/png;base64,#img/keizer.svg)

]

* Disorder greatly increased all norm violation (A)

* Strong **internal validity** from experimental design

* Weak **external validity**: Single sites in one city, small-scale, minor norm violations

* Criticism: [Wicherts & Bakker (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213502); [Lanfear (2017)](http://hdl.handle.net/1773/40974)

]

---

# Collective Efficacy

[Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1086/210356) contend that disorder and crime are both manifestations of low collective efficacy—the community's capacity for informal social control.
--

* C, D: Disorder and crime are products of low collective efficacy—social control—which is exogenous (B, E)
]

---

## Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)

Simultaneous equations of crime, disorder, and collective efficacy in Chicago neighborhoods, using survey-measured collective efficacy and objectives measure of disorder: Video of block faces coded by researchers.

]

* Control for crime impact on collective efficacy (E), but assume no disorder feedback (B)

* Strong **external validity**: *Actual* disorder, crime, neighbourhoods

* Weak **internal validity**: Cross-sectional, covariate adjustment
]

---

# Key Questions

---
class: inverse, sncp

# The Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Project

---

## The Experiments

Over 2000 person-hours of **field experiments**, conducted over four years, embedded in representative Seattle neighbourhoods with rich **ecological survey data** (2002-2003 SNCS)

* Balance experimental and observational strengths and weaknesses

* Maximize internal and external validity

&zwj;1. **Mailbox Experiment** (today)

* Effect of disorder on crime and prosocial behavior (replicate Keizer)
* Association between collective efficacy and crime and prosocial behavior

&zwj;2. **Littering Intervention**: (today)

* Effect of disorder on sanctioning behavior
* Association between collective efficacy and sanctioning behavior

&zwj;3. **Lost Letter**: Collective efficacy &#8594; prosocial behaviour

&zwj;4. **Litter Clean-Up**: Collective efficacy &#8594; disorder removal

---

![Experiments](data:image/png;base64,#img/experiments_pretty.svg)

---

# Number of Trials

---

---

---

# Mailbox: Method

* A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter

---

* A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter

* Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder

* Observe whether participants mail, steal, or ignore envelope

* Record gender, age, race, and grouping of participants to adjust for differences between and interference within trials

* Record if disorder present *prior to trial* to test asymmetry

* 368 trials with 3,481 participants in 20 Seattle census tracts

---

# Mailbox: Model

Objective: Causal test of direct effect of disorder on crime (A).

---

# Mailbox: Model

Our Experiment: Causal tests of direct effects of disorder on crime and prosocial behavior—and associations with collective efficacy

---

# Mailbox: Results

<table style="width:70%">
 <tr>
 <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Mailbox: Participant Actions</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <th>Condition</th>
 <th>Walk-By</th>
 <th>Mail</th>
 <th>Theft</th>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Control</td>
 <td>1496</td>
 <td>176</td>
 <td>28</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>88.0%</td>
 <td>10.4%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td>
 <td>1617</td>
 <td>136</td>
 <td>28</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>90.8%</td>
 <td>7.6%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 </tr>
</table>

* Disorder has **no impact on theft**—Keizer et al. (2008) fails replication

* Disorder **reduces mailing**

* Collective efficacy predicts less **theft** and **prior disorder**

* Consistent with ecological studies and suggests external validity
--

* **Prior disorder** predicts thefts, but no difference in treatment effect

* Association persists once disorder removed—not local disorder effect

---

---

## Littering Intervention: Method

A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters in view of passersby near a trash can with a no-littering sign.1

Researchers record if confederate is sanctioned—**risky prosocial behavior**—or litter disposed of by participant—**low-risk prosocial behavior**. *Content* of sanction is also recorded.

Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

Replicated with three confederates of varying gender and race to manipulate interpersonal context which may influence evaluations of risk:2
 * Black Man
 * White Man
 * White Woman

We conducted 576 trials in 12 Seattle census tracts.

???

8 trials per person per condition in 12 tracts. 8 x 2 x 3 x 12

---

# Littering Intervention: Model

---

* Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring.
]

---

count:false
# Littering Intervention: Model

* Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring.

* Test effect of interpersonal context of norm violation on sanctioning (L).
]

---

count:false
# Littering Intervention: Model

* Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring.

* Test effect of interpersonal context of norm violation on sanctioning (L).

* Captures association between collective efficacy and sanctioning (M).
]

---

# Results: Sanctions

<table style="width:70%">
 <tr>
 <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Litter Intervention: Sanctions</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <th> Condition</th>
 <th>Black Man</th>
 <th>White Man</th>
 <th>White Woman</th>
 <th> All</th>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Control</td>
 <td>2</td>
 <td>2</td>
 <td>9</td>
 <td>13</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.021</td>
 <td>.021</td>
 <td>.103</td>
 <td>.045</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td>8</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td>13</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.011</td>
 <td>.091</td>
 <td>.043</td>
 <td>.045</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Both</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>10</td>
 <td>13</td>
 <td>26</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.016</td>
 <td>.052</td>
 <td>.068</td>
 <td>.045</td>
 </tr>
</table>

Key Findings:

* No *unconditional* effect of disorder on sanctions—a risky prosocial action.
   * Disorder *interacts* with confederate race/gender.

--
* Collective efficacy and letter returns did not predict sanctioning (M).

--
* Sanctioning varies widely by confederate in both *quantity* and *content*.
   * White woman: *Confrontational* sanctions usually from men.
   * Black man: *Non-confrontational* sanctions only from women.
   * White man: *Non-confrontational* sanctions, men and women.

???

One of the big takeaways here is that sanctioning for littering is just really quite rare.

As a result, our test here is underpowered.

LB: 11/13 from men
TP: 3 sanctions from women
CL; 6/10 sanctions from men

---

# Results: Throwing Away

<table style="width:70%">
 <tr>
 <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Litter Intervention: Throw-Aways</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <th> Condition</th>
 <th>Black Male</th>
 <th>White Male</th>
 <th>White Female</th>
 <th> All</th>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Control</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>17</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.079</td>
 <td>.079</td>
 <td>.059</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td>10</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.043</td>
 <td>.035</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Both</td>
 <td>6</td>
 <td>10</td>
 <td>11</td>
 <td>27</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.052</td>
 <td>.057</td>
 <td>.047</td>
 </tr>
</table>

We also evaluated if our interventions impacted throwing away the dropped litter—a low risk, non-confrontational prosocial action.

Key Findings:

* Disorder treatment reduces throwing away.

* This effect also conditional on confederate characteristics.
--

* Collective efficacy and letter returns do not predict throwing away.

---

# Other Experiment Results

* Collective efficacy strongly predicts lost letter returns

* Contextual effects (letter addressee) exert strong effects
   * i.e., people don't like nazis

* Collectively efficacious neighbourhoods really hate my litter cameras

* Suggests large differences in clean-up speed

* Mailbox experiment replicated in Oxford in Summer 2022
   
   * No effect on theft (108 trials, 3808 participants)
   * High walk-by rate, likely due to heavier foot traffic

---
class: inverse

# Q&A and Acknowledgements

Our experimental findings are the result of over 2000 person-hours of field work over four summers. This was made possible by the participation of graduate student researchers, grant funding, and UW institutional resources.

Anquinette Barry

Chris Hess

John Leverso

Kate O'Neill

Terrence Pope
]

National Science Foundation

UW Royalty Research Fund

### Support

UW Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences

UW Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology
]

---
count: false
class: inverse

# Appendix

---

count:false
# Mailbox Models

|                    |  Mail    |  Theft   |     Mail  |   Theft  | 
|:------------------:|:--------:|:--------:|:---------:|:--------:|
|  (Intercept)       | **-2.053** | 0.332    | **-1.467**  | -1.437   | 
|                    | *(0.538)*  | *(1.170)*  |  *(0.579)*  | *(1.329)*  | 
|  Treatment       | **-0.275** | -0.081   |**-0.263**   | -0.098   | 
|                    | *(0.118)*  | *(0.261)*  |  *(0.119)*  | *(0.263)*  | 
|  Coll. Eff.          |  0.265   | **-1.206** |   0.171   | -0.804   | 
|                    | *(0.173)*  | *(0.396)*  |  *(0.181)*  | *(0.424)*  |
|  Walk-by Rate   | **-0.564** | -**0.535** |  **-0.534** | **-0.429** | 
|                    | *(0.063)*  | *(0.132)*  |  *(0.064)*  | *(0.133)*  |
|  Male             |          |          |  -0.094   | **0.880**  | 
|                    |          |          | *(0.117)*   | *(0.296)*  |
|  Non-White         |          |          |  **-0.459** | 0.397    |
|                    |          |          | *(0.144)*   | *(0.272)*  |
|  In Group            |          |          |  **-0.876** | **-1.302** |
|                    |          |          | *(0.161)*   | *(0.475)*  |

---
count:false
class:inverse

# The Lost Letter

---
count:false

# Lost Letter: Method

Replication of [Milgram et al. (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344) and [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html).

2,938 letters were dropped on Seattle sidewalks for passersby to encounter.1

.footnote[[1] Drops conducted on foot in center city and by car in most tracts—at the cost of one car accident. ]

24 letters—8 per addressee—were dropped in each census tract:
  * Charles F. Landers Sr. (Personal)
  * Friends of Black Lives Matter (BLM)
  * American Neo-Nazi Party (Nazi)

Mailed letters were received at a PO Box monitored by the research team.

???

We still have every single returned letter in storage.

Letters were geocoded to drop locations and featured a small printed ID number for tracking.

---
count:false

# Lost Letter: Model

.pull-right[
* Returning a lost letter is a low-risk pro-social intervention highly correlated with collective efficacy (G)1.
]

.footnote[
[1] See [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html) and [Milgram, Mann, and Harter (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344).
 
 
 
]

---
count:false

# Lost Letter: Model

.pull-right[
* Returning a lost letter is a low-risk pro-social intervention highly correlated with collective efficacy (G)1.

* This may be used to update the 2002-2003 SNCS collective efficacy measures which may have shifted over time.2
]

.footnote[
[1] See [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html) and [Milgram, Mann, and Harter (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344).

[2] Note however that collective efficacy is persistent ([Sampson 2012](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html)).
]

---
count:false

# Lost Letter: Results

| *Study* (Letter Address) | *Return Rate* | `$\rho(CE)$` 
|:--------------------------------|--------|------------|
|*Milgram et al. (1965)*1 | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Medical Research Associates | 70% | -- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Friends of the Community Party | 70% | -- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Friends of the Nazi Party | 25% | -- |
|*Sampson (2012)*2 | 33% | .41 |
|*SNCP*3 | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Charles F. Landers Sr. | 79% | .35 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Friends of Black Lives Matter | 71% | .32 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; American Neo-Nazi Party | 24% | .03 |

* Our results closely mimic Milgram et al. (1965).
* Collective efficacy does not predict Neo-Nazi letter returns.

---
count:false

## .blue[Mailed] and .rust[Unmailed] Letters

---
count:false

# Updating Collective Efficacy

* Sampson (2012) found `$A = .73$` over 7 years.
* Assume `$A = .50$` over 12 years.
* We find `$\rho(Z_1Y) = .35$` for personal letters.
]

---
count:false

# Updating Collective Efficacy

* Sampson (2012) found `$A = .73$` over 7 years.
* Assume `$A = .50$` over 12 years.
* We find `$\rho(Z_1Y) = .35$` for personal letters.

Extrapolation:

* `$\rho(Z_1Y) = A*B$`
* `$.35 = .50 * B$`
* `$B = .70$`
]

Under some assumptions,

* Collective efficacy is highly correlated with letter returns.
* We have an updated measure of collective efficacy.

---
count:false

---
count:false
class: inverse

# The Litter Clean-Up

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Method

]

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by.
]

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by.
]

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by.
   * This permits capturing the relationship between collective efficacy and time to remove disorder.

]

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* An alternate magazine rack defaced by graffiti and stickers is swapped in to manipulate disorder.
]

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Results

* The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Results

* The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

* In Ravenna, residents reported the magazine racks on Nextdoor as an "eyesore".

???

Ravenna, where I was living at the time, is a high collective efficacy, fairly affluent, residential neighborhood.

* Two magazine racks had locks cut and were removed.

* Thus we were unable to continue experiment *because of collective efficacy* in an affluent neighborhood.

* In contrast, one rack was left *for an entire year* in Capitol Hill without issue.

---
count:false

# Litter Clean-Up: Alternative

We supposed the speed of return of lost letters was correlated with clean-up time of trash.

As a pilot, in selected tracts, 24 pieces of litter were dropped in the same locations as lost letters and then checked three times over the course of a day.

Neither timing nor a binary measure of clean-up were found to be associated with either lost letter returns or overall collective efficacy.